The High Court has refused Dublin City Council’s attempt to narrow a judicial review challenge concerning building-control decisions affecting two adjoining premises on Fleet Street in Dublin 2.
Declan Doyle and Amatrek Limited were granted leave in 2024 to challenge three council decisions. These included the December 2023 refusal to register a certificate of compliance on completion, an August 2022 enforcement notice and, if necessary, a May 2021 decision invalidating a commencement notice.
Dublin City Council asked the High Court to set aside leave in relation to the two older decisions. Its central argument was that those challenges were clearly out of time.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell refused that application. He said the jurisdiction to undo an earlier grant of judicial review leave must be used very sparingly and only where it is plain that leave should never have been granted.
The applicants had already addressed delay when seeking leave and had expressly asked for an extension of time. They argued that the three decisions were closely connected and should be considered together at a full hearing.
The dispute stems from fit-out works at the Fleet Street properties. The applicants accept that works began after a commencement notice had been invalidated, but they dispute key aspects of the council’s subsequent enforcement and building-control decisions. Dublin City Council, for its part, raised public-safety concerns about the manner in which the works were completed.
The judge said those underlying issues were heavily contested and could not properly be resolved on this preliminary motion. The volume of material filed — seven folders including legal authorities — reinforced the view that the application risked becoming a proxy trial.
The ruling does not mean the applicants will ultimately receive an extension of time or succeed in the judicial review. Dublin City Council remains entitled to raise those issues at the full hearing.
The case was returned to the judicial review directions list with a recommendation that it be accelerated. The judge’s provisional view was that the applicants should receive the costs of this motion, stayed pending the overall proceedings.